Lawsuit Challenges NCLB as Unfunded Mandate

On April 20, 2005 several school districts in Michigan, Texas, and Vermont, ten state and local affiliates of the National Education Association (NEA), and the NEA itself filed a lawsuit against U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings in federal court. In their case, Pontiac School District v. Spellings, the plaintiffs claim the federal government is violating a provision in NCLB, which states that no state or school district will be required to spend its own funds to fulfill the federal law’s mandates.

Plaintiffs’ Claims and Requests

The Pontiac v. Spellings complaint contends that states and school districts have had to divert money away from school programs to pay for NCLB mandates because the federal government is not providing the requisite funding. Based on recent news coverage of a widespread backlash against NCLB, it appears that many states and school districts across the country agree. In challenging this alleged shortfall of federal funding, NEA President Reg Weaver declared, “The principle of the law is simple: if you regulate, you have to pay.”

More specifically, plaintiffs cite both the costs of administering the federal law and the costs of helping students reach test score targets as under-funded mandates of NCLB. They recount the loss of existing programs, such as those for gifted and talented students, foreign language instruction, arts programs, class size reduction, and extracurricular activities, as on-going casualties of NCLB’s alleged under funding.

The plaintiffs are requesting a declaratory judgment that: (1) schools and districts are not required to spend their own money; and (2) failure to comply with NCLB requirements because of inadequate federal funding is not a violation of NCLB and will not be a basis to withhold federal funds. Furthermore, the plaintiffs seek an injunction against the U.S. Department of Education (ED) that would prevent it from withholding federal funds on these grounds.

NCLB Cost Studies

The Department of Education has responded to the suit by pointing out that the current administration has made historic increases in education funding and that four separate cost studies show that NCLB funding is sufficient. Critics, such as education finance expert and superintendent of a Vermont plaintiff district William J. Mathis, argue that the federal increases amount to only one percent of total education funding and that several separate cost studies show NCLB’s administrative costs alone exceed that increase. Connecticut, for instance, conducted a study in conjunction with the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and found that the state would have to spend $41.6 million more than the federal government is providing to comply with the administrative requirements of NCLB.

Perhaps national studies of NCLB’s costs need to be conducted to begin to resolve the competing claims of the federal government on the one hand, and the states and local school districts on the other. For more information on NCLB cost studies, see articles on studies in Texas and Ohio.

“Adequacy” Cost Studies

The results of numerous adequacy cost studies lend support to the contention that current levels of federal funding would not be sufficient to help states educate students to meet state academic standards, even if the total amount authorized by the statute were allocated to schools. Over two dozen states have conducted studies such studies and have found, on average, a 27.5 percent increase in education funding is necessary to provide children with the basic resources they need to obtain an adequate education.

Based on these studies, Mathis estimates the increase needed nationwide at $138 billion, much more than NCLB’s funding authorization levels. For fiscal year 2006, the authorization level is $22.75 billion for Title I and $14.1 billion for other NCLB programs. Moreover, the annual appropriation levels for the law have been several billion dollars less than the authorization levels.

Growing Rebellion

Only days after the NEA’s suit was filed, Maine Governor John Baldacci was urging his state’s attorney general to join as a plaintiff in the suit. The Pontiac v. Spellings suit is only the latest act in a backlash against NCLB playing out across the nation. On April 19, for example, the Utah legislature passed a measure that directs school officials to give state educational programs and accountability systems priority over NCLB and to minimize diversion of state funds for NCLB implementation.

In addition, states have been requesting waivers from NCLB requirements based in part on cost considerations. So far, the federal government has consistently denied these requests. After ED turned down its waiver request, Connecticut announced on April 5 that it plans to file a lawsuit against the federal government on the same grounds as the Pontiac suit.

Prepared by Wendy C. Lecker, April 27, 2005